Of course. But dissection of her statements as to whether they are true should be on her thread.

I presume you mean dissect to examine for truthfulness from a "does it match up with what else we know, is it directly contradicted by what else we know, or do we not know enough from other sources to be sure?" point of view.

Is there anyone else upon whose statements we may or may not perform the same analysis?

Were Crump/Jackson withholding evidence? Are they obligated to share crucial evidence, obtained through their own P.I., with the police during an ongoing investigation? During an interview, Jackson contradicts Crump's widely publicized version of how they came to know about DeeDee's phone call. According to Jackson, a hired investigator discovered the phone records not Tracy Martin.

Quote

And, you know, I donít know if itís a terrible job or just they thought it was inconsequential to do the job. You know, thereísówhether or not it was important to do or it was bungled, we donít know. But we had to go out and investigate this case. We hired an investigator that got the phone records. And once we saw Trayvonís phone record, because he was on theóhe had his phone with him, and we saw that he was on the phone when this incident purportedly happened. We contacted the person he was on the phone with. It was a young girl.

Why did they claim it was Tracy Martin who discovered the phone records? The police specifically requested access to the phone records but Tracy refused and referred them to his lawyers. The lawyers could refuse cooperating, citing attorney/client privilege but that same privilege does not extend to their hired investigator does it?

Jackson chastised the police for not doing a thorough investigation while at the same time deliberately withholding crucial evidence that would have assisted in that investigation. How is that not unethical and unlawful?

Crump's version clearly claims Tracy discovered the DeeDee call and then called DeeDee himself. Jackson clearly stated a hired investigator got the phone records and then they(Crump/Jackson) contacted DeeDee. Who is telling the truth? I personally believe Jackson accidentally told the truth when she got carried away during that lengthy interview.

Quote

We took another step in this -- what has been a daily journey for the past three and a half weeks. Mr. Martin, on Sunday evening, was working with his cell phone account, trying to figure out Trayvon's password. And he looked on it, and he saw who the last person was that Trayvon Martin talked to while he was alive.

He called me late Sunday night and told me that he had called the young lady, and he told me, and I was just utterly shocked when he told me the time that they talked.

That seriously surprises me. I was almost sure there was a legal obligation at least in the case of felonies. I suppose that's what happens when someone gets their knowledge of the law from watching TV.

That seriously surprises me. I was almost sure there was a legal obligation at least in the case of felonies. I suppose that's what happens when someone gets their knowledge of the law from watching TV.

Both Crump and Jackson are officers of the court. I thought they were obligated to inform LE of any possible felony. If, and that is a HUGE IF, they discovered something that TM told Dee Dee that could be construed as helping the Defense then if they coached her enough to work around it, I would find that morally reprehensible. But would it be unethical as a legal standard?

IMO, she caught Bernie de la Rionda off guard a couple of times and he didn't question her further in places where I thought he would naturally would. If he were really seeking the truth about what happened that night, instead of trying to stick a charge to GZ, that is...

Both Crump and Jackson are officers of the court. I thought they were obligated to inform LE of any possible felony. If, and that is a HUGE IF, they discovered something that TM told Dee Dee that could be construed as helping the Defense then if they coached her enough to work around it, I would find that morally reprehensible. But would it be unethical as a legal standard?

IMO, she caught Bernie de la Rionda off guard a couple of times and he didn't question her further in places where I thought he would naturally would. If he were really seeking the truth about what happened that night, instead of trying to stick a charge to GZ, that is...

IANAL, but if someone becomes aware of a felony (any crime?), or evidence of one, aren't they legally obligated to inform LE? Isn't it a crime not to?

The question posited was whether the Martins and their reps had to turn over phone records. Possession of phone records isn't a crime -- at most they might be helpful to one side or the other and they are available to either via subpoena.

There is a federal crime of misprison of a felony -- concealing a felony from authorities -- but again, that's concealing an actual crime, not concealing evidence. 18 USC Section 4

Quote

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge orother person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this titleor imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

There is a federal crime of misprison of a felony -- concealing a felony from authorities -- but again, that's concealing an actual crime, not concealing evidence. 18 USC Section 4

The federal crime of misprison of a felony requires more than not reporting a crime; it requires an affirmative step to conceal the crime.

United States v. Johnson, 546 F. 2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1977):

Quote

The factual basis of defendant's plea does not demonstrate the existence of "concealment," an essential element of the offense of misprision. The record of defendant's plea fails to reveal that he took "affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principals." United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1124 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 905, 91 S.Ct. 1366, 28 L.Ed.2d 645 (1971); Neal v. United States, 102 F.2d 643, 649-650 (8th Cir. 1939). The mere failure to report a felony is not sufficient to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. ß 4. Lancey v. United States, 356 F.2d 407 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 922, 87 S.Ct. 234, 17 L.Ed.2d 145 (1966).

United States v. Ciambrone, 750 F. 2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1985):

Quote

The elements of the crime of misprision of felony are: (1) the principal committed and completed the felony alleged (here, the possession and concealment of counterfeit money); (2) the defendant had full knowledge of that fact; (3) the defendant failed to notify the authorities; and (4) the defendant took an affirmative step to conceal the crime. United States v. Hodges, 566 F.2d 674, 675 (9th Cir.1977).